Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Teill Reynolds, a prisoner at Lansing Correctional Facility, slipped and fell in the shower on June 15, 2023, sustaining injuries. Reynolds filed a complaint against Mabel Adams and Bryan Wilson, employees of Centurian, alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs, cruel and unusual punishment, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Reynolds moved for summary judgment on August 7, 2025, but the Court denied the motion because it failed to cite specific record evidence and relied on conclusory assertions without proper factual support under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court also ruled Defendants' motion to strike moot.
Issues
- Because the court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the Defendants' motion to strike that motion became moot and was not granted. The court found that once the summary judgment motion was denied, there was no longer any need to address whether it should be struck from the record.
- The court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because he failed to comply with federal and local rules requiring citation to specific parts of the record. The motion relied exclusively on conclusory assertions without proper legal citations, which is insufficient to meet the burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The court determined that Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, still must follow governing summary judgment procedures.
Holdings
The Court denied Plaintiff Teill Reynolds' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42) because his conclusory allegations were insufficient to meet his burden of demonstrating summary judgment was warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, as he failed to cite or identify parts of the record supporting his motion. Because the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is moot.
Remedies
The Court denies Plaintiff Teill Reynolds' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42) and declares Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 47) moot. The Court finds Plaintiff failed to comply with federal and local rules governing summary judgment practice by failing to cite specific facts and provide citations to the record in support of his conclusory allegations.
Legal Principles
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates no genuine dispute as to any material fact and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court must view evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. A dispute of fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.
- To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on a claim upon which the moving party also bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party must demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. The motion must identify facts and provide citations to the record in support.
Precedent Name
- City of Herriman v. Bell
- Hastings v. Campbell
- Hall v. Bellmon
- Whitney v. New Mexico
- Bones v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.
- Leone v. Owsley
- Wright ex rel. Tr. Co. of Kan. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
- Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Cited Statute
- 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)
Judge Name
Julie A. Robinson
Passage Text
- Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates 'that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact' and that it is 'entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' In applying this standard, the Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
- Because Plaintiff's conclusory allegations are insufficient to meet his burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, the motion must be denied.
- IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 15, 2025